At 08:05 PM 9/25/2011, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
As you (Brett) should have known, the reason we did that was because
of the enormous upheaval that 5.x represented. And we knew in advance
that we'd have problems with 5.x as a result.
Yes; because I was developing products based on it at the
On Saturday, 24 September 2011 at 23:09:09 -0400, Allen wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:47:38 -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
>
>> Indeed it was. Back in those days, they didn't jump a major version
>> number every three or four releases. They polished and polished and
>> POLISHED each version of the OS.
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:47:38 -0600
Brett Glass wrote:
> Indeed it was. Back in those days, they didn't jump a major version
> number every three or four releases. They polished and polished and
> POLISHED each version of the OS. The 4.x branch reached
> 4.11-RELEASE before it was shut down, an
At 03:33 PM 9/15/2011, Allen wrote:
If you look on Wikipedia, they say that the 4.x line was some of
the most stable stuff ever made.
Indeed it was. Back in those days, they didn't jump a major version
number every three or four releases. They polished and polished and
POLISHED each version
on the drive, and
didn't touch it for a while. Then, one day, I tried again. I got it
installed. I've been using FreeBSD on and off ever since. Now, I'm
Married, have my own House, and we have a BUNCH of machines, and I
usually make sure at least one or two are running FreeBSD.
Ped
(4.x nostalgia belongs to -chat, not to -arch)
I also have good memories of the 4.x era, but I tried
reinstalling not long ago and it didn't really look
all that great. Objectively I think part of the glory
of those days was the momentum building around the
platform (the BSDi code was me
